“Nuclear power to save the world” read a recent Sunday Times headline proclaiming an apparent change of heart by environmentalist guru James Lovelock, a claim which he emphatically denies. The piece highlights the complexity and diversity of the solutions posed for sustainability.
It was out of concerns that the fundamentals of sustainability were being distorted by the emphasis being placed on the green agenda that a DTI-funded research programme was proposed entitled “Buildings: a new life”. The report’s authors’ concerns were not only that inappropriate emphasis on environmental issues was producing the wrong answers but also that there was a failure to recognise the diverse and often conflicting interests of the different stakeholders in the sustainability debate, especially when intergenerational issues are taken into account.
The research project’s authors examined documentary sources, surveyed opinions and prepared a series of case studies, and confirmed their thesis, identifying key issues.
The triple bottom line
These have been developed in Building Sustainability in the Balance: Promoting stakeholder dialogue, which seeks to identify the range of topics to be considered, making use of social, economic and environmental criteria – the so-called triple bottom line. These have shown that there are legitimate and different interests for various stakeholder groups which, for convenience, have been grouped into the internal stakeholders (building owners, investors, occupiers) and external stakeholders (local, national and even global interest groups).
One of the research paper’s findings was that too much emphasis on energy in use and renewable resources can distort the picture to the extent of creating unsustainable developments.
There are different means of measuring a building’s energy consumption, but although the concept of embodied energy – the energy required to construct a new building or to demolish and replace an existing one — is well known, it is not taken into account in several of the recognised measuring tools. This means that high scores may reflect the anticipated energy consumed in use but several commentators have remarked that they can encourage less energy-efficient solutions that would be available if embodied energy were taken into account.
This is of particular importance where the justification for a new building may, in part, be its improved energy performance over the existing structure. Furthermore, some of the projections of energy savings may prove to be unrealistic since, in practice, many residential buildings with improved insulation have not conserved energy but instead allowed the occupiers to enjoy an increased thermal performance without reducing the energy consumption. Wearing an extra sweater might well be a more cost-effective means of economising on heating.
There has been a focus on measurable criteria such as the use of energy, whereas in fact it may be that the unmeasureable has greater significance. Fashion, loveability, likeability, adaptability, legal constraints, location and locality may all have a fundamental bearing on whether a building survives. Richard Florida, in The Rise of the Creative Class, has identified the importance of creating a place where the creative classes want to live. He claims that instead of trying to use industry as an economic regenerator, it is more effective to make the place attractive so that the business makers want to be there and bring the employment with them. This tenet recognises today’s more volatile and mobile workforce.
As we have seen, there are many different stakeholders and their interests do not necessarily coincide. Take the future maintenance and alteration of the building. Will the special components such as gaskets still be available, will the components be sourced locally or is the owner bound into some international supplier? And, finally, the source of employment that traditional materials can provide to the local community with redecoration, simple alterations and adaptations may no longer be available, thus reducing longer-term economic sustainability.
Diverse interests of stakeholders
As we consider the intergenerational interests, the differences grow. The nuclear energy source as mentioned at the start of this article provides one of the cleanest sources of power for the current generation, apart from the energy embodied in the construction of the plant. The issues arise for future generations who may have to decommission the plant and dispose of the waste, but if by continuing to use fossil fuels we pollute the planet and aggravate global warming, are we not passing on an unsustainable inheritance?
Even on a simple matter such as energy consumption in an office block, we can see the conflicts between external and internal stakeholders. The cost of energy to heat a building is minute compared with the staff costs of running a building. For the occupier, saving energy is of little importance compared with keeping staff happy. For the global community, however, the use of fossil fuels is of considerable significance. Thus one has little interest in greater capital expenditure to save energy while the other has. This is further amplified by the building and the capital costs often being borne by the developer while the running costs are paid by the tenant.
We need to find a way to balance these issues and engage a wider audience in the debate. The solutions are not always obvious.
Professor Anthony Walker works for DLG architects and is co-author, with Sarah Sayce and Angus McIntosh, of Building Sustainability in the Balance. It is available from www.propertybooks.co.uk
